Things could get bad for the PPP
President Zardari’s speech at the death anniversary of Benazir Bhutto was marked by a grim resolve. While the address might have disappointed those who expected him to indulge in the type of fireworks that marked his earlier speeches on the occasion, Zardari refrained from confronting the military directly. He nevertheless made it clear that he was not the man to cut and run.
Coming within days of Gilani’s tough stand against plotters who according to him wanted to bring down the government, the address indicates the PPP’s resolve to continue to hold on to power till the end of its tenure.
Zardari knows it is not possible to remove him in the way delineated in the constitution. The President can be sent home on the ground of physical or mental incapacity or impeached on a charge of violating the Constitution or gross misconduct. The partial stroke and the travel to Dubai had led some of his opponents to think he had fled from the country for good. When he returned to give them a lie, they launched a media campaign maintaining that he was sound neither physically nor mentally. Holding a number of meetings and travelling over long distances were proofs of Zardari’s physical fitness. The hopes that he would act rashly by launching a tirade against the army have also proved to be false. The speech indicated that he was fitter than ever before. Thus one ground on which Zardari could have been legally removed has proved untenable.
The president can also be impeached on a charge of violating the constitution or gross misconduct. Even with its combined strength, the opposition is not in a position to get the mandatory signatures of more than half the membership of either the Senate or the National Assembly to call a joint session of Parliament to start the impeachment process. Unless the offstage players pressurise the MQM and PML(Q) to quit the alliance, the move would fizzle out at the initial stage.
The way the government and the army have come face to face in the Supreme Court shows a resolve on the part of the powers that be to see the back of the president and, if necessary, that of the PPP government before the end of their tenure.
Of course, the establishment can manage the desertions as it has enough levers to pressurise the PML(Q) and MQM. But even then, it would not be able to command the two-thirds majority of the total 442 members of Parliament (342 MNAs and 100 Senators) required under the constitution to pass the resolution. After the recent resignations from the parliament, even if the BNP(A) and PML(F),the remaining components of the coalition also decide to vote for the impeachment, the required two-thirds majority would remain illusory in the presence of PPP’s 153 solid votes (126 MNAs and 27 Senators) combined with 15 votes of the ANP which is likely to stick to the alliance. PPP’s votes are likely to increase after the March Senate elections by more than 20.
Some of the levers that were frequently employed by the offstage players during the 1990’s are no more available. In the early years of the decade, the military acted through docile presidents armed with immense powers to remove the civilian governments. Taking note of the trick, Nawaz Sharif brought in a president of his own choice, leaving Musharraf no way other than a direct military takeover. With the president and the prime minister belonging to the same party, those desiring urgent government change face a dilemma.
A Musharraf type takeover requires a pliant judiciary to subsequently legalise the act. Things have changed now. There is an independent and assertive judiciary in place. It has rejected the doctrine of necessity which was used to justify every successful rebellion as a revolutionary act. The present SC has declare in unequivocal terms that it would not allow any change of government through unconstitutional means.
Removing the PPP government through a putsch a year before the end of its tenure would somewhat raise its badly shattered image. Any military takeover will lead all major political parties to join hands in its opposition. The PPP which is bad at governance but fairly good at agitation would be the principal beneficiary. As Zardari put it in this address, “Our way will be that of Aung San Suu Kyi,” (the widely acclaimed torch bearer of democracy in Myanmar).
Can the court play any role in the scenario? Supposing the SC decides that Zardari authorised the memo which was delivered to Mullen through Mansoor Ijaz and that by doing this he was guilty of gross misconduct or even of violating the constitution; this would create a situation where parliament is required to impeach the president but is unable to do so. The issue could force the opposition to go for en masse resignations followed by a movement to paralyse the government. If called upon to quell the agitation, the army could refuse to oblige.
The already isolated PPP would hardly be able to withstand a movement of the sort. The way it has mismanaged the economy, shown callous disregard for the common man and provided benefits to its unprincipled allies has left it with few sympathisers.
Zardari had once cynically remarked that the return of democracy was not the outcome of the people’s movement but the result of Benazir Bhutto’s negotiating skills. His party subsequently decided to ignore the people as they didn’t matter to him. The PPP government was kept in office mainly through alliances with the pro-establishment parties that had been the mainstay of Musharraf’s regime. The common man suffered everywhere particularly in Sindh and Balochistan. Despite its five year mandate, the PPP has lost the moral authority to rule. It will find this out when it is obliged to go to the masses.
The writer is a former academic and a political analyst.